High Court · 2025

W.P.(MD) No.5718 of 2019BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 06.02.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMANWP.(MD) No.5718 of 2019andWMP.(MD).Nos.4510 to 4511 of 2019Shanthi Selvi.. PetitionerVs.1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.2.The District Project Officer, The Child Welfare Scheme, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.3.S.Amutha.. RespondentsPrayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining the Impugned Appointment Order vide his Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.711/A1/2017, dated 08.02.2019 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner in the Post of Principal Anganwadi Worker at Vilanur, Avudaiyarkovil Taluk, Pudukkottai District._________Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.5718 of 2019For Petitioner:Mr.C.Mayilvahana RajendranFor RR1 & 2:Mr.G.V.Vairam SanthoshAdditional Government PleaderFor R3:-No Appearance-ORDERUnder assail is an appointment order issued in favour of the 3rd respondent dated 08/02/2019. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to Christian Pallar Community, which comes under the backward class. The petitioner studied upto 12th Standard and having Certficate Course in Computer Application. The petitioner's husband died on 02.07.2012. She is a destitute widow. There is a vacancy for the post of Principal Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre, Vilanur. The respondents No.1 & 2 invited application, she has applied for the said post enclosing the educational qualification certificates and destitute widow certificate. 3. The petitioner attended the interview along with original certificates, the petitioner is the most eligible candidates among others. The third respondent is a B.Ed graduate and her husband he is practicing as Psychotherapist and earning income. The third respondent's father-in-law is a landlord. The petitioner is the duly eligible candidate to this post _________Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.5718 of 2019and she is waiting for the appointment but the third respondent was appointed as Principal Anganwadi Worker, Vilanur by the first respondent, hence this Writ Petition.4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the most eligible candidate among all of them and she is a destitute widow and the respondent failed to consider the background of the petitioner and her educational qualifications and the petitioner is also residing within two (2) Kilometers radius and prayed to allow the petition.5. Per-contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents would submit that the post for Anganwadi Worker at Vilanur, Avudaiyarkovil Taluk, Pudukkottai District has been reserved for GT (Non priority) category. The petitioner is aged about 39 years, studied upto 12th standard and residing within one (1) Kilometer centre but different panchayats. He would submit that the thrid respondent is aged about 32 years studied upto B.A. and residing at same village within ½ Kilometer from the centre. The Selection Committee has scrupuosly followed the Government Orders and found that the 3rd respondent is more suitable for the said post. There is no _________Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.5718 of 2019procedural vioaltion conducted in the selection process.6. It is seen from the records that the post of Anganwadi Worker at Vilanur has been reserved for General Non priority category and totally nine (9) persons including the petitioner had applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker at Vilanur. The interview was conducted on 30.08.2017. The petitioner and seven (7) other candidates were attended the interview.7. It is seen from the G.O(Ms).No.110 dated 14.05.2022 of Social Welfare and Nutrious Meal Programme (SW7) Department, the Government had issued various orders prescribing the eligibility criteria for the post of Anganwadi Workder, Mini Worker etc. In the said G.O, in point No.2.8 reads about the Residency, wherein it is stated hereunder:-“ The Government direct that the applicant should be resident of the same hamlet. If no eligible/suitable candidate from the same hamlet is available, the candidtes from the neighbouring hamlets of the same panchayat of the particular centre shall be considered. Even then, eligible/suitale candidates are not available the candidates from the neighbouring panchayats located within 10 kms shall be considered for the appointment of Anganwadi worker.”_________Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.5718 of 20198. The issue regarding preference based on the village was considered by this Court in the decision reported in P.Vasantha & Ors Vs. District Collector, Dindigul Ors, 2007 (6) MLJ 402, wherein it is held that giving of such preference based on the residents is in violation of Article 16 (2) of the Constitution.9. It is pertinent to mention that an individual can challenge the selection process on grounds of mala-fide or other patent irregularities committed in the slection process. The Judicial Review of an administrative action will be justified in case of mala-fide (or) procedural irregularities.10. Generally, in the matter of appointments, the view taken by the Selection Committee cannot be interfered with, because the persons who are in Selection Committee cannot be interfered with, because the persons who are in Selection Committee are supposed to be the right persons for selecting the eligible candidate for a particular post.11. In the instant case on hand, that the respondent Nos.1 & 2 explained that the petitioner is aged about 39 years, studied up to 12th standard and residing within three (3) Kms from Centre. The 3rd respondent is aged about 32 years, studied upto B.A, and residing within _________Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.5718 of 2019½ Kms from the Centre. As per G.O.Ms.Noo.110, on considering the fact that the 3rd respondent is residing within ½ Kms from centre, she was appointed to the post. As the centre is not reserved for priority category, the petitioner can not claim priority under destitute widow. 12. In the light of the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Consequently, connected writ misceallenous petitions are also closed. 06.02.2025NCC : Yes/NoIndex: Yes/No Internet : Yesnst_________Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.5718 of 2019To1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.2.The District Project Officer, The Child Welfare Scheme, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District._________Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.5718 of 2019M.JOTHIRAMAN.JnstWP.(MD) No.5718 of 2019andWMP.(MD).Nos.4510 to 4511 of 2019Dated: 06.02.2025_________Page 8 of 8